Proposed 1no two storey dwelling with parking.
The Corner Bungalow
Mr and Mrs Howell.
Proposed 1no two storey dwelling with parking
The Corner Bungalow, Puttock Gate, Fosdyke, Boston PE20 2BX
Mr & Mrs Howell
The Deputy Development Manager presented the report advising that the application had been called-in by the Ward Member Councillor David Brown citing the reason that the application would be incongruous to its surroundings.
The application site was located at the corner of Puttock Gate and Old Main Road, Fosdyke and consisted of part of a domestic garden. It was partly gravel-surfaced, but was mostly lawned and contained a number of shrubs and small trees. The site’s boundaries were a 2m-high conifer hedge and a very short length of 2m-high close-boarded timber fence to the west of the site, a 2m-high close-boarded timber fence to the north, to the east partly by a 2m-high hedge and it was partly undefined to the south
The boundary treatments onto Old Main Road contained a gap which appeared to correspond with the location of the vehicular access approved under B/10/0318, but did not appear to be in use as an access at the time of the site visit.
The land surrounding the site was predominantly in residential use, but that immediately to its north was in use as an agricultural yard.
Full planning permission was sought for the erection of a detached, three-bed, two-storey dwelling (with single-storey elements). The dwelling would measure a maximum of 11.5m x 8m in plan, would stand 7.7m-high at ridge level, and would have windows/glazed doors in every elevation. The walls being finished in red multi facing brick; the roof in imitation slate tiles with integrated solar panels and white upvc windows. The application form indicated that doors would either be in upvc or woodgrain composite. 2 swift nesting bricks, 1 starling nest brick, 1 house-sparrow nest brick and 1 bat box would be provided within the building.
Vehicular access was proposed to come from Old Main Road (via the existing gap in boundary treatments), and would lead to a parking and manoeuvring area to the north of the dwelling.
The application was accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment dated January 2023: a Sequential and Exception Test dated April 2023; a Supporting Planning Statement and three documents from the applicant and agent which sought to respond to points raised by objectors.
Full planning permission had been granted on 15th October 2010 on the site
for the construction of a new vehicular access.
Planning permission had been refused on 20th October 2010 for the construction of a chalet bungalow with integral garage as the application had conflicted with the Local Plan in place at that time.
Objections had been received from the owner of the agricultural yard to thesite’s immediate north on several grounds including concerns in respect of the access to their own yard which adjoined the access proposed to serve the dwelling, which been used for loading and deliveries since to their site since 1952 and would significantly limit visibility for vehicles using the proposed new access. Further objection noted that the owner of agricultural yard had not made aware of application B/10/0318 in October 2010 stating they would have objected to had they been informed and they now considered that the planning permission has lapsed because there was no evidence that condition 2 attached to the permission, had been discharged.
There had been no objections from any of the statutory consultees subject to the inclusion of the informatives’ and standing conditions.
Representation was received from Mr Finch in objection to the application which included:
Confirming he was speaking as the agent for Mr. Mowton who was the owner of the agricultural business alongside the application site, Mr Finch confirmed that the business had been operating from the site for 70 years. He stressed that Mr. Mowton was not against development on the site but the access point was the main point of his objection. The reason being HGV’s loading and unloading produce for his business parked on the highway to do so, as his site did not have room for the vehicles. The HGV’s when parked on the road could cause visibility problems for vehicles exiting the proposed new access road. An alternative access to the site would be a safer option. Referencing the refused planning application in 2010 Mr. Finch recognising a new local plan had been agreed in 2019, questioned what had actually changed since that decision. He stated that whilst the new plan facilitated suitable new development in Fosdyke, it had to be appropriate to scale. Members were asked to note that the proposed development was not in keeping with the village which was low density development with good separation distances and amenity land.
Responding to question tables by members in respect of his representation Mr Finch advised as follows:
In relation to the impact of the development on the agricultural business, the concerns were the impact of the HGV’s in respect of potential dangers to vehicles existing the proposed development site. The option of parking the HGV’s on the other side of the highway would cause potential problems with issues of having to cross the road to unload and load the goods. Currently HGV’s parked on the near side at the access to the site and were unloaded and loaded direct onto the private land of the business.
Whilst being unable to respond in respect of why the owner Mr. Mowton had not established a legal right though precedence on the highway, Mr Finch advised that the site had operated for 70 years without any issues or complaints from either LCC Highways or the Police. Should the vehicles need to be unloaded on the site it would mean the site being changed with the possible loss of existing storage facilities.
Representation was received by Ms. McIntee the agent for the applicant which included:
Members were advised that the applicant owned the existing dwelling and as such had designed the proposed new dwelling which had a lower ridge and eaves than their own, to complement the existing street scene. Swift bricks and bird boxes would be provided, flood risk had been adequately addressed and there would be no impact on highway safety with ample parking on the site. Referencing the location map, members were advised that there had been a new development of nine new homes just around the corner extending the developing surrounding area. LCC Highways had raised no objections to the access and whilst the objector used the highway as a part of their business and had tabled an objection against it, access was not a material planning consideration. By granting the application the use of the existing access which could mean the objector having to use his own premises for vehicle loading / unloading which could result in the highway being less dangerous by taking the HGV’s into the yard. Residents who exited Puttock Gate did experience visual issues when the HGV’s were parked up.
Responding to question tables by members in respect of his representation Ms. McIntee advised as follows:
No alternative access had been considered due to the existing one already being in place and considering the site and boundary there was no automatic option. The existing access was in place and LCC Highways had raised no objection to it.
Representation was received from Cllr Brown which included:
Councillor Brown referenced the application submitted in 2010 for the proposed Chalet on the site, which had been refused due to it being incongruous in design and layout and the flood risk deemed inadequate. He stated that the current application was also visually incongruous to its surroundings and it appeared to be over-development of a former garden introducing an elevated building to the side of the highway. The owner of the agricultural business alongside the site had not known about the application for the access in 2010 and would have objected to it, had be known. The business had operated in the same way for 70 years and there was no room on the site for vehicles to deliver and collect produce. Councillor Brown further cited Policy 10 and stated that the proposed single dwelling would not, as was identified within the report, make a modest contribution to the allocation for the Borough of Boston. Fosdyke had identified areas within its settlement which were sequentially preferable to the site which was in flood zone 3. Furthermore Councillor Brown asked how the condition requiring residents to use no more than 110 litres of water per person per day would be monitored.
It is recorded that Councillor Brown left the meeting at this part in the proceedings.
Prior to committee deliberation the Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure addressed some of the points raised during the representation received. Issues relating to materials and contamination would be addressed by the virtue of conditions as was standard practice. Referencing the comments relating to the access and the previous application on the site, the access was clearly in place and committee were determining the application tabled, which LCC Highways had raised no objection to despite the unloading and loading in a low speed environment. Similarly where comments had noted possible implications in respect of changes being required to their working practices for the existing business alongside the application site, again LCC Highways had raised no objection to the application. Addressing the query in respect of the condition for water usage, members were advised this too was common practice to comply with the Local Plan and would be taken forward through building regulations.
Committee deliberation followed which included:
Overall members supported the application agreeing that the village had grown significantly since the previous application on the site in 2010 and that the current application was not incongruous within the surroundings. Referencing the existing business a member noted that he saw no problem with HGV’s reversing into the site and comments relating to the road not being wide enough were incorrect as the road had originally been the main A17 and was the width of such a main road. Comments also included that the application was akin to back-land development.
In response to questions tabled the Assistant Director – Planning and Strategic Infrastructure advised that there were no double yellow lines along the road, and had LCC Highways considered the need for them, they would have made an application for traffic regulation order. Referencing the term of back land development, members were advised that there was no such edict in policy terms not to build on gardens. Policy directed the character and context for an acceptable form of development and in policy terms the application was fully compliant. Members were further advised that there was a condition in place to control the building materials to ensure they were sympathetic to the existing area.
It was moved by Councillor Anne Dorrian and seconded by Councillor Claire Rylott that the application be approved in line with officer recommendation
Vote: In Favour: 12 Against: 0 Abstentions: 0
That the application be approved as per officer recommendation subject to the following conditions, reasons and informatives.
Reason: Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Reason: To ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the approved details, and to comply with Policies 2, 3, 4, 28, 30, 31 and 36 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.
Conditions which apply during the course of and following completion of the development.
Reason: To ensure that the new building is in keeping with the character of the area, in accordance with Policies 2 and 3 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.
These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.
Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants, and to accord with the requirements of Policy 4 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.
Reason: In the interests of biodiversity and in accordance with Policy 3, 28 and 31 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.
Reason: To protect the quality and quantity of water resources available to the district. This condition is imposed in accordance with Policy 31 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.
Reason: To ensure all contamination within the site is dealt with and to accord with Policy 30 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.
§ Location of charging points;
§ Specification of charging points; and
§ Timetable for the implementation of the above measures.
The development shall then be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of promoting sustainable transport in accordance with Policy 31 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2019.
INFORMATIVES / NOTES TO BE INCLUDED ON / WITH DECISION NOTICE:
STATEMENT OF PROACTIVE WORKING:
In determining this application, the authority has taken account of the guidance in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 in order to seek to secure sustainable development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions of the Borough.
The Welland and Deepings Internal Drainage Board asks to be re-consulted if soakaways are not to be used for surface water disposal.
The Lincolnshire County Council indicates that:
§ The permitted development requires the formation of a new/amended vehicular access. These works will require approval from the Highway Authority in accordance with Section 184 of the Highways Act. Any traffic management required to undertake works within the highway will be subject to agreement. The access must be constructed in accordance with a current specification issued by the Highway Authority. Any requirement to relocate existing apparatus, underground services, or street furniture because of the installation of an access will be the responsibility, and cost, of the applicant and must be agreed prior to a vehicle access application. The application form, costs and guidance documentation can be found on the highway authority website, accessible via the following link: https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/licences-permits/apply-dropped-kerb.
Please contact the Lincolnshire County Council Streetworks and Permitting Team on 01522 782070 to discuss any proposed statutory utility connections, Section 50 licences and any other works which will be required within the public highway in association with the development permitted under this Consent. This will enable Lincolnshire County Council to assist in the coordination and timings of these works. For further guidance please visit the highway authority website via the following link: Traffic Management - https://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/traffic-management
The Environment Agency supports “the suggestion in the FRA that occupants sign up to receive flood warnings. Occupants should phone Floodline on 0345 988 1188 to register for a flood warning, or visit https://www.gov.uk/sign-up-for-flood-warnings. It is a free service that provides warnings of flooding from rivers, the sea and groundwater, direct from telephone, email or text message. Anyone can sign up.”
It is recorded that Councillor Brown returned to the meeting on conclusion of this item.